Free speech to be blocked under guise of stopping hate speech.

[PC2]

Company policies are only legally binding towards you as an employee if there in your signed contract. Facebook have no obligation to fulfill their policies to you as a user and memeber on the site.

Wrong, they do have an obligation to their users to act in accordance of their stated policy. For example, they can't say they'll keep your personal information/data secure one day, and then secretly sell it out the next day. If they did that it would be a violation of their obligation and an investigation could be needed.

[Machismo]

This isn't really a free speech issue. Everyone would agree that ISIS videos and accounts should be shut down that are promoting that cause. The people understand that a business should be allowed to take down highly inappropriate stuff.

The concern is what is going to be deemed as "hate speech". This is being raised as a part of what some are claiming to be a "political correctness" war. Let's be honest, college and university campuses are stifling a lot of speech by deeming it offensive and hateful (remember the kid who called in to complain about Trump chalked on the sidewalk). Some people in this country do not want to allow acceptable conversation to be labeled as "hate speech" even by a private company. Deeming things "hate speech" that are not, can overtime give that argument validity. We do not want to move down a slope of an ever growing number of topics to become automatically labeled as "hate speech". Don't think a person with a male reproductive organ should be in a bathroom with your daughter? HATE SPEECH!

Free speech allows people to give their dissent over a company instituting a rule like this in their product.

But you created a subjective example (ISIS), then proceeded to complain about the utilization of subjectivity in deeming what hate speech is.

The title says that free speech is being blocked, but that's not really the case.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

But you created a subjective example (ISIS), then proceeded to complain about the utilization of subjectivity in deeming what hate speech is.

How is that subjective?

[Machismo]

How is that subjective?

Does everyone actually agree that ISIS videos should be shut down, or that accounts that promote them should be shut down? Isn't that just the other poster deeming what is inappropriate? That seems like the very definition of subjective.

You agreed with the very thing you've been disagreeing with, the censoring of something based on subjectivity.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Does everyone actually agree that ISIS videos should be shut down, or that accounts that promote them should be shut down? Isn't that just the other poster deeming what is inappropriate? That seems like the very definition of subjective.

You agreed with the very thing you've been disagreeing with, the censoring of something based on subjectivity.

Wait, what did I agree with, exactly? Since when did asking your a question agreeing with something?

Actually, Machismo is defending ISIS, and I consider that hate speech. So ban him please!!! /s

[babyback]

Wrong, they do have an obligation to their users to act in accordance of their stated policy. For example, they can't say they'll keep your personal information/data secure one day, and then secretly sell it out the next day. If they did that it would be a violation of their obligation and an investigation could be needed.

Facebook is alresdy selling your data to companies. That's why you get ads based on your google history

[PC2]

Facebook is alresdy selling your data to companies. That's why you get ads based on your google history

Which is fine as long as they haven't stated that they would not.

[Ealyssa]

Ah the private company boys, sure man, tell me what if google decided to only show far right news, far right perspective in the political search results?
Would it be good? They are private company.

They'll loose all their viewers and all their customers (add revenu), pretty simple actually...

[Machismo]

Wait, what did I agree with, exactly? Since when did asking your a question agreeing with something?

Actually, Machismo is defending ISIS, and I consider that hate speech. So ban him please!!! /s

You asked me why it was subjective, I gladly explained why. You managed to agree with subjective censorship, yet oppose it at the same time... interesting.

[wowaccounttom]

does that mean people can ignore and refuse service to the gays, the blacks, and the mexicans as to prevent themselves from breaking this law?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You asked me why it was subjective, I gladly explained why. You managed to agree with subjective censorship, yet oppose it at the same time... interesting.

Again, where did I agree with anything. You're doing that thing again; being incredibly dishonest.

[Machismo]

Again, where did I agree with anything. You're doing that thing again; being incredibly dishonest.

"Thank you! Thats exactly my point. People view hate speech and different things.. if 'Trump" being written in chalk is "problematic" ... then sure advocating for Trump as president would be the same thing? "

You seemed confused as to how it was sunjective, then I explained it to you. Were you not agreeing with him? Your enthusiastic reply to him sure seemed like you agreed with him.

[twelvethirty]

this is just a guise to silence politically incorrect views. twitter and reddit have been doing it for years, they are just being open about it now.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

"Thank you! Thats exactly my point. People view hate speech and different things.. if 'Trump" being written in chalk is "problematic" ... then sure advocating for Trump as president would be the same thing? "

You seemed confused as to how it was sunjective, then I explained it to you. Were you not agreeing with him? Your enthusiastic reply to him sure seemed like you agreed with him.

Since when is asking a question agreeing with someone?

[Simulacrum]

Freedom of Speech only pertains to the Government, not private entities. They have the right to "limit speech" on their sites, just as you have the right to not let me paint swastikas on the side of your house.

It's interesting to see how quickly the political demagoguery has rotted people's minds to the point where you're genuinely saying this. It was just 4-5 years ago when I would never even have considered the possibility that someone saying something so stupid could actually mean it.

[Machismo]

Since when is asking a question agreeing with someone?

Asking the question is not agreement, your earlier statement was (or really seemed to be). Were you simply being emphatically supportive of his comment, while silently disagreeing with it?

"Thank you! Thats exactly my point. People view hate speech and different things.. if 'Trump" being written in chalk is "problematic" ... then sure advocating for Trump as president would be the same thing?"

Otherwise, I'm sure you are just as outraged by them removing ISIS-based propaganda and accounts that support them.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Asking the question is not agreement, your earlier statement was (or really seemed to be). Were you simply being emphatically supportive of his comment, while silently disagreeing with it?

"Thank you! Thats exactly my point. People view hate speech and different things.. if 'Trump" being written in chalk is "problematic" ... then sure advocating for Trump as president would be the same thing?"

I was agreeing with that comment. That does not mean I think the ISIS example wasn't subjective. Please stop being dishonest man. Its really sad.

[Machismo]

I was agreeing with that comment. That does not mean I think the ISIS example wasn't subjective. Please stop being dishonest man. Its really sad.

Like I said, you agreed with his comment... which is exactly what i said in the first place.

You then asked how it was subjective, and I proceeded to tell you. Since you clearly believe it was subjective, you either believed my proof, or you were trolling by asking in the first place.

You really need to stop lying, and actually read the shit you type.

[Kujako]

It's interesting to see how quickly the political demagoguery has rotted people's minds to the point where you're genuinely saying this. It was just 4-5 years ago when I would never even have considered the possibility that someone saying something so stupid could actually mean it.

Which part do you disagree with? That computers are private property, or that people who own things get to say what can and can not be posted on them?

[Jtbrig7390]

Ah the private company boys, sure man, tell me what if google decided to only show far right news, far right perspective in the political search results?
Would it be good? They are private company.

You may not like there choice but you have to accept there right to be able to make it. If google wanted to only show websites that had cow jokes that is there choice and there right to make.